The picket signs reflected the church’s view that the United States is overly tolerant of sin and that God kills American soldiers as punishment.... The “content” of Westboro’s signs plainly relates to broad issues of interest to society at large, rather than matters of “purely private concern.”... While these messages may fall short of refined social or political commentary, the issues they highlight—the political and moral conduct of the United States and its citizens, the fate of our Nation, homosexuality in the military, and scandals involving the Catholic clergy—are matters of public import....
The fact that Westboro spoke in connection with a funeral ... cannot by itself transform the nature of Westboro’s speech. Westboro’s signs, displayed on public land next to a public street, reflect the fact that the church finds much to condemn in modern society....
Westboro’s choice to convey its views in conjunction with Matthew Snyder’s funeral made the expression of those views particularly hurtful to many, especially to Matthew’s father. The record makes clear that the applicable legal term—“emotional distress”—fails to capture fully the anguish Westboro’s choice added to Mr. Snyder’s already incalculable grief. But Westboro conducted its picketing peacefully on matters of public concern at a public place adjacent to a public street. Such space occupies a “special position in terms of First Amendment protection.”...
The record confirms that any distress occasioned by Westboro’s picketing turned on the content and viewpoint of the message conveyed, rather than any interferencewith the funeral itself. A group of parishioners standingat the very spot where Westboro stood, holding signs that said “God Bless America” and “God Loves You,” would not have been subjected to liability. It was what Westboro said that exposed it to tort damages....
Snyder argues that even assuming Westboro’s speech is entitled to First Amendment protection generally, the church is not immunized from liability for intrusion upon seclusion because Snyder was a member of a captive audience at his son’s funeral.... Here, Westboro stayed well away from the memorial service. Snyder could see no more than the tops of the signs when driving to the funeral. And there is no indication that the picketing in any way interfered with the funeral service itself. We decline to expand the captive audience doctrine to the circumstances presented here.While joining the majority opinion, Justice Breyer also filed a concurring opinion emphasizing his understanding that there might be some situations outrageous enough that a state could permit recovery for intentional infliction of emotional distress for a verbal assault, even when it was launched to call attention to views on a matter of public concern.
Justice Alito was the sole dissenter. In his opinion, he argued that while Westboro members have many means to express their views:
It does not follow, however, that they may intentionally inflict severe emotional injury on private persons at a time of intense emotional sensitivity by launching vicious verbal attacks that make no contribution to public debate.Justice Alito emphasized the publicity seeking nature of Westboro's picketing strategy and focused on Westboro's post-funeral Internet posting that went beyond comments on matters of public concern and also attacked the Snyders personally.
The New York Times reports on the decision.
